Missed this one but no shit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecutive_fifths
However, when counterpoint species are derived from Palestrina style polyphony, any avoidance of parallel movements of any kind for longer periods should make sense, e.g. see these species, which are more complex than Fux’
http://www.ars-nova.com/musicatouch/act ... trina.html
We had similar species derived from Knud Jeppesen, which is also one of the sources to the species above apart from Fux whose basics are incorporated too. In all, I think it is fair to say that Fux brought the basics of counterpoint into tonal music and was not aiming for same level of polyphony as Palestrina. The notion that avoiding parallel fifths is to save the individuality of voices like the Wiki article claims is not a reason Fux states and can obviously not be a logical reason either if you just harmonize to support one main melody, e.g. Fux had rules for treating perfect and imperfect harmonies, but an imperfect harmony is one that miss any of the members, octave, third, or fifth and not not just the third (Page 32-33) so he does not consider a chord consisting of octave and fifth one that loses harmonics or individual content more than any other imperfect harmony. Further, he accepts a triad of octave and fifth as ending chord if you are in minor, because he does not see a minor chord as conclusive and changing the chord to major instead will change its mode (page 80). In choral harmonization we had to avoid parallel fifths as well combined with rules such as always taking the shortest route to another chord allowed by the melody and this rule is certainly not individuality saving. It seemed quite restrictive to me whereas saving individuality of voices makes sense in modal/polyphonic counterpoint.